Jodhpur – Offering significant relief to four doctors accused of medical negligence, the Rajasthan High Court has quashed an FIR filed against them in connection with the death of a patient who had undergone a minor uterine fibroid surgery. The Court underscored the improbability of medical professionals or institutions intentionally engaging in conduct that could jeopardize their reputation and economic stability.
Justice Farjand Ali, delivering the judgment, emphasized that no private hospital or medical practitioner would “deliberately risk their institutional standing, public trust, and economic viability by operating with a wilful disregard for human life.”
“In the modern healthcare ecosystem, reputation and operational viability are directly tied to clinical integrity. It is inconceivable that a qualified professional, with years of academic and clinical training, would intentionally endanger a patient’s life,” the Court observed.
The case was filed by a complainant who alleged “grave medical negligence” by the treating doctors at a Jodhpur hospital, where his daughter-in-law was admitted for a routine surgery. The allegations included omission of key pre-operative tests, misdiagnosis, and delayed critical care, leading to the patient’s deterioration and eventual death at a referral hospital in Ahmedabad.
However, after evaluating the opinions of both district- and state-level medical expert committees—neither of which found prima facie evidence of negligence—the High Court ruled that the FIR lacked merit.
The Court stated that:
“For an act to constitute criminal medical negligence under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), it must be more than a mere error of judgment. It must reflect gross dereliction of duty or malice—a standard not met in this case.”
Further addressing the broader implications, the Court highlighted the fragility of public trust in private medical institutions, which depend heavily on goodwill, ethical credibility, and consistent patient outcomes.
“Hindsight Bias Not a Legal Metric”
Rejecting retrospective critiques of the doctors’ decisions, the Court said:
“It is a fallacy to presume that because an alternative method appears preferable in hindsight, the course of treatment actually chosen was negligent.”
It also dismissed claims of suppression of diagnostic details or intent to mislead patient attendants, noting that such assessments cannot be made without considering clinical exigencies and hospital protocols.
A Line Between Tragedy and Liability
While acknowledging the tragic loss suffered by the family, the Court stressed the legal necessity of distinguishing between misfortune and culpability.
“Sorrow cannot substitute the proof required under law. The legal system must ensure that emotional grief does not override evidence and expert analysis,” the bench remarked while quashing the FIR.
The decision reinforces long-standing judicial precedent that criminal liability against doctors cannot be invoked lightly and must be based on strong, expert-backed evidence of recklessness or gross deviation from standard care.
